headlines in your calls live on "washington journal." at 10:00 eastern the senate foreign relations committee looks at the situation in city and. witnesses include george clooney. in a few minutes, we will look it key senate races. joshua gordon will examine the latest projections for federal spending and the deficit at 8:30 eastern. we will focus on david cameron's trip to the u.s. with stephen flanagan. "washington journal" is next. >> we did it again. >> rick santorum edges out the new gingrich and mitt romney for two victories in alabama and mississippi last night. mitt romney scored a victory in

hawaii. good morning on this wednesday, march 14, 2012. president obama official welcomes british prime minister david cameron to the white house this morning if with a 19-gun salutes and an arrival ceremony full of pomp and circumstance. they will hold a joint news conference at noon today followed by a state dinner tonight. we will have that 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3. we begin with last night's primary. rick santorum leading in two states. but what is next for newt gingrich? dial in on your respective phone lines. also, you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. or post your comments on

facebook. let me show you the local papers this morning. santorum sweeps in alabama. and in mississippi, santorum by a hair. the washington times this morning has this to say about last night's primary -- so this morning we want to hear from you about last night's

primaries, what you think should be newt gingrich's next move. and the baltimore sun --

susan is supporting mitt romney in maryland. good morning to you. the announcement in the papers is that mitt romney's camp wants newt gingrich to stay in the race so he does not to go one- on-one with rick santorum. caller: that maybe so, but i am more reassured every time i see it that the conservatives don't like mitt romney. i am an independent and i have been watching. i feel strongly that it is we are attracted to one extreme or the other. our country needs somebody to stop the rhetoric in d.c. a lot of the country does

support romney and i think that's good. >> from new york, you are supporting newt gingrich. what is the next move for your candidate newt gingrich? caller: stay and fight. host: all the way to the convention? caller: i don't think so. i don't think he has a choice. we need somebody like him as president. he will need to fight for its. host: what do you think about those that are due this is hurting the republican party overall to have all four candidates staying in all the way until the convention? caller: it is too bad, but he still needs to stay. host: who is your second choice, carol? caller: probably santorum. host: so you would go over to

rick santorum? caller: maybe. host: what would make you do that? caller: he would have to improve his thoughts about drilling and so forth. i think that neither candidate, including gingrich, is addressing the health care issue very strongly. host: so, more about policy issues, energy, no care. what about the economy? is newt gingrich talking about that enough? caller: i think they have been talking about that enough. i think the health care issue is huge. i am not in favor of obamacare. so i would be glad to see that go. i have a son who has had two heart attacks. he has tried to apply for a

help and cannot get it because they say that he earns too much money. he is self-employed and it is very sporadic. he does not have the money. host: so health care is a big issue for you. that was carroll in new york, new gingrich supporter. gingrich oppose the campaign put out a memo yesterday saying that newt gingrich does better in the second half of the primary race. in the memo they said in total the states in the final three- week stretch have 509 total delegates, almost half of what is needed for the nomination. the final primary of utah is not until three weeks after june 26. this nomination will not be decided until the fourth quarter and that is not until june. it means a candidate who closes august in the race will

win. that's the argument as to why the plans to stay in the race. now to shreveport, louisiana. randy is supporting mitt romney. your state has a primary coming up. caller: i had to call on the run because i did not see ron paul's name. host: we do have a line for ron paul supporters as well. we will put that up while you are talking. caller: these people are pack of puppets. ron paul is the only one that is will get us out of any kind of situation, especially in the middle east. if i had to go with a 2nd it would be rick santorum. the other two, there's no way. i am hoping ron paul runs in the third party, independent or something. i am really independent.

ok, i see ron paul's number up there. thanks for your time. host: you would possibly go with rick santorum? caller: that would be a long shot. i would put in a write-in votes before voting for any of them. newt gingrich need to pack his bags and go home. host: randy differs from a pull from gallop yesterday. republicans not calling for gingrich or others to drop out. that could be difficult to do because of the way the delegates are portion doubt over the primary season and it could be even more difficult for rick santorum.

the "washington times" this morning says --

wilmington, pennsylvania, mark supporting ron paul. what did you make of the primaries last night? caller: [unintelligible] host: you have to turn the

television down. now, bob is on the line. caller: newt gingrich will be the next president. sarah palin got wiped out in alaska and we got wiped out in ohio, but newt gingrich stayed in there. we all got wiped out, but our commander in chief, theoretically speaking, newt gingrich is still in the game. he can take it to the convention and he can beat obama. called obama at the white they ought to get ready for newt gingrich. ever supportyou

rick santorum? caller: romney is a yankee and i am a yankee. he could pull it together. mitt romney would be the best one. host: your second choice is mitt romney? caller: everybody talking about mormons, but he is pulling a lot of entertainers with him on the campaign trail. he would not be boring. if he chooses rick perry as a running mate, that would be fine because we are an air force family. but i do hope to new gingrich holds it together. host: this is what newt gingrich had to say after coming in

second in alabama and mississippi. >> one of the things to night proved is that the elite media oppose the effort to convince the nation that mitt romney is inevitable and just collapsed. [applause] [cheers] the fact is in both states the conservative candidates got nearly 70% of the votes. if if you are the front runner and you keep coming in third, you are not much of a front runner. host: here's how the numbers broke down last night. in alabama, rick santorum wins 35% in that state. newt gingrich comes in second with 29%. mitt romney, 29%. i% for ron paul. in mississippi, rick santorum edges out its competitors with a 33%.

gingrich, 31. mitt romney, 30. ron paul, 4%. in the baltimore sun this money morning --is

host: montgomery, texas. john is a mitt romney supporter. he came in third in alabama and mississippi. some questioning whether or not he could win. caller: i don't thing he could win the south. the reason is religion. no one in the south or midwest that are born-again christians are going to vote for a mormon. it is a fact that the national media has missed. and i think it is a matter of not being so conservative, is a matter of not being christian enough in the south. you have a fine program, by the way. thank you. host: before you go, i want to show you and poll.

faith shrinks as a factor. caller: i think it's much more than that. no one will admit to it being religious, but there's a lot of that, i believe. all you have to do is look at the amount of literature -- anti-mormon literature that has been distributed in the south and midwest to born-again christians. you would be surprised at the venom that exists. host: paula, rick santorum supporter in mineral wells, texas. what do you think about last night's primaries?

caller: i think romney [unintelligible] host: what's that? .aller: i don't trust romney [inaudible] .aybe i don't like them either santorum would be a better candidate. host: do you want to see newt gingrich get out? caller: yes. host: bob is supporting ron paul in rochester, new york. are you?how ou

i think it's ridiculous for my fellow americans to think that religion matters. they are just working for the interest of the international banking cartel. there's no choice except for ron paul. in november, write in ron paul . the electronic voting booth will not do it for you. ron paul is the only answer to fix this country. the rest of them are still for the international interests. host: dayton, ohio, martha is supporting newt gingrich. should your candidate possibly get out? caller: dove family should stay in -- he definitely should stay in. he is the one strong enough to stand against these other nations that are trying to destroy us. host: do you have a second choice? caller: it is really hard.

i would go with rick santorum if . if i had to, i would go with romney. the thing america needs to realize is we have got to stick together so that we can beat obama. those supporters of ron paul, ron paul's philosophy is give the nukes to iran. that is a nation that wants to obliterate the united states and israel. somebody with that mentality to have nuclear capability and is disastrous. philosophy, he is way off the mark. host: y rick santorum as your second choice over mitt romney?

when you look at the exit polls and analysis, people are saying mitt romney has the best chance of beating president obama. caller: i believe that the liberal left is pushing for romney because they know obama probably could beat romney. host: you think rick santorum has a better chance? caller: i like him. he is a likable person, but i think that he needs a strong vice-president. whether it likes it or not, he should go with either newt gingrich, that would be my first choice. i would go with newt gingrich or rick perry if santorum were the nominee. and the woman -- host: michelle bachmann? caller: the governor of arizona, a very strong person. host: jan brewer.

here is the wall street journal this morning -- caller: you know, i understand what's going on. and we cannot let the votes to be split when it comes to voting. host: would you want to see some sort of a brokered convention or rick santorum and mitt romney or maybe newt gingrich and mitt romney at the convention trying to get those un-bound delegates

to vote for them? caller: i think towards the end whoever is in the second position should throw in the towel and throw support to the republican candidate, because we cannot -- if this voting is split when it comes to the election, the republicans will lose and we will have four more years of obama. we cannot afford that as a nation. host: president obama was in dayton, ohio, yesterday watching one of the n.c.a.a. basketball tournament games with the british prime minister david cameron. they flew on air force one to that state and sat on the sidelines and watched a little basketball. " with that"usa today story --

we will talk about all that in our last hour. we will have an expert on u.s.-british relations to help us and show you our coverage on c-span3 starting at 9:00 a.m. of the arrival ceremony at the white house. there will be popping and circumstance with the two leaders giving speeches at the white house and then they will

hold a noon news conference, but two of them. then a state dinner tonight. will have coverage of that. go to c-span.org for more details. williamsburg, pennsylvania, a supporter of rick santorum. caller: here is why i support santorum. even when a democratic governor was in office, he praised santorum during his time in office for bringing home the bacon to pennsylvania. pennsylvania has not had a president in office since buchanan. we need some pennsylvania -- we need some money for pennsylvania. that is why i support santorum. host: let me get your reaction to wall street journal editorial.

gop voters want a happy warrior as much as a conservative one, it comments on him smiling more now. caller: i think rick santorum can easily become a happy warrior. host: do you think that he needs to do more work between now and the convention to convince more voters that he could beat president obama? caller: absolutely. however, if the republican base is going to come out in force, it will not be for romney, because when romney was in office in massachusetts, he flat-out lied to the people who are in favor of reproductive choice. they wanted not to fight with him. this first or second bill was a bill limiting abortion.

so romney is a liar. rick santorum is not. you might hate him or love him, but he is not a liar. host: would you ever vote for mitt romney, stan? caller: probably not. host: this is what mitt romney had to say last night as the results were announced the mississippi and alabama. did not have any event where he was on camera. leonardtown, maryland, you are supporting ron paul, brad. good morning. caller: one of the things i wanted to bring up, they had a

little thing on television about sentiment toward the afghanistan and how that is changing in the wake of like the koran oven bu -- of the and the soldier that killed 16 afghans. with the sentiment changing, so are the candidates. rick santorum is trying to get a little bit more away from supporting afghanistan and so is newt gingrich. this is something that ron paul has been saying for many, many years now, get out. and so, i see it all the time. candidates will do anything to sway public opinion or get the voters their way. it has nothing to do with their

convictions or anything. it is just to get voters. the voters are falling for it. ron paul is the one. host: here is about newt gingrich in the wall street journal this morning -- so that is about to gingrich's campaign and whether or not he continues to stay in the race. if you are watching -- if you watched last night's primary coverage, united noticed some of the networks there was not covered. neither msnbc nor fox news was

in a collection of for the evening as both stayed with their standard primetime programming yesterday, it says, in the washington post. so, that is the story about the coverage of last night's primaries in the washington post and how that plays out for the candidates. john is supporting newt gingrich in raleigh, north carolina. does he stay in all the way to the end? caller: yes, newt gingrich should stay into the end. he and rick santorum are

friendly. they have an opportunity to further themselves. they have an opportunity to consolidate. at this point they will be -- there will be an effective situation for them to talk about. host: at what point do they consolidate? caller: these two gentlemen will have a dialogue and to discuss things and will be able to advance themselves. mitt romney suppresses voter turnout. he is not a passionate man or a man people will listen to or are inspired by. when newt gingrich speaks, people listen and are inspired and people turn out to vote. with newt gingrich teaming up with rick santorum, but two have an opportunity to dialogue. host: you would support rick santorum? caller: i would support any of

the three gentlemen, actually. but i would have to say that in terms of fairness, it is fair for newt gingrich to have an opportunity and for santorum to have an opportunity also. host: about the primaries and caucuses coming up, here is the new york post -- so it's a close race in louisiana. mitt romney was campaigning yesterday in missouri, which holds its caucus on saturday. that is the race going for it. we will keep talking about this for about 15 more minutes, getting your take on last night's primaries and what is

the next moves forced former speaker newt gingrich, who came in second in mississippi and alabama. jack is a mitt romney supporter in utah. what is your advice to your candidate to try to appeal to southern republican voters? caller: thank you for having me on. mitt has a good track record and is a good man. he has had a life of service. he went on a mission monday was a young man. as far as being a christian, this man has served all his life --when he was a younger man he served as a volunteer at his church and as a leader. he has always been in administrative, executive positions. he has industry experience. none of the other men have experience in industry. as far as connecting with the people, i don't know, he does

not have the ability to preach like a preacher. but he has a track record of getting things done. he came out here and the olympics were in total shambles. personally, i served as a volunteer in the olympics. i thought we were going to lose them. there was a tremendous scandal. he completely turned it around. our coffers were full when he left. we are still better because of mitt. i respect newt gingrich and rick santorum, but i don't think they have the ability to turn the economy around like mitt romney will. host: what about their argument that mitt romney is not a true conservative and even exit polls out of last night's's primaries show people don't think mitt romney is a true conservative? caller: let's take a look at

that. i think he is pretty conservative enough to go down to the southern states and do what he did this week. he did not win, but look how close he came. he did pretty darn well. newt said he did not win, a 29 is pretty close. he came in close. host: essentially tied. caller: 31% and 30% is pretty close. he did well. almost the same with the amount of delegates. he won american samoa and hawaii. he came out with more delegates than the others. when i see rick santorum, i see gomer pyle. when i see gingrich i see a

philanderer. when i see mitt romney, i see a good man with no baggage. he can last. host: all want to show new rick santorum from last night in louisiana. he talked about going forward what needs to happen. >> the time is now for conservatives to pull together. the time is now to make sure, to make sure that we have the best chance to win this election, the best chance to win this election. to nominate a conservative to go up against barack obama who can take him on, on every issue. louisiana, missouri, illinois, and puerto rico, which we are headed there tonight. we are going to spend two days campaigning in puerto rico, because we want to make sure everybody knows we are campaigning everywhere there are delicate, because we are going

to win this nomination before that convention. host: in hawaii, rachel called early this morning. mitt romney did win in hawaii. 45%. rick santorum came in second with 25%. 18% for ron paul. and hawaii, republicans sided with romney. santorum defeated three rivals in alabama and mississippi. the next moves for speaker newt gingrich is the topic. ruth is supporting mr. gingrich in tulsa, oklahoma. what do you think? caller: i do support gingrich. he is very experienced in working in washington, very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. he has the experience and

knowledge to get things done in washington and he has a plan for undoing some of the really bad policies that have come down through the obama administration. we need for some changes to happen. host: did you say who your second choice is? caller: i guess it would be santorum. i will support to weber the nominee is, but my preference would be gingrich. one of the indicators that romney is a bad choice, the worst choice of the three, is the fact the liberal media has been supporting him from the beginning of his candidacy. they tried to sell him as the inevitable candidates all along. they attacked any candidate who has come near him in the primaries up until this point and are still doing it. i think they would like to see him get the nomination.

that makes me suspect him very heavily. -- wef the things really le really need to do is get rid of obamacare. newt gingrich will go after that as job one. host: u.s. and representative spencer baucus, has represented alabama's 6 district -- also, some other races out of that state. in the first district, a sixth term for brooks. in the fourth district, danielle

daniel bohman wins. and we are talking about competitive senate races in about five minutes or so with jennifer duffy. we will break down the top races, deemed important by the cook political report. first, your thoughts on newt gingrich's next move. the new york times has this to say about alabama's primary and other primaries --

if you are wondering why there were so many delegates at stake, that's our breaks down. a ron paul supporter, deerfield beach, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i feel that ron paul is the only one that will get us out of the philosophy that we are the england of the 21st century. i believe that he is the only one that does not have baggage. romney could not beat kennedy for the senate seat. a santorum got demolished by a very liberal and bob casey in pennsylvania. we are at a point in our history that we can repeat 1860 except that it will not be the state's rights and slavery, it will be the haves against and

have nots. if we want to keep the minimum wage in pace with inflation, we would not have the entitlement problems and the debt from the entitlement problem. host: this is a headline in the washington post this morning about senate action this week. are in session, the house is not. and in other news this morning, you might diverge from the federal reserve that 15 out of 19 banks passed a stress test, meaning that they could survive further downgrades in the economy and housing market, etc. wall street reacted very positively to that news with the

dow jones going above 13,000. and the fed yesterday weighing in on the economy after the very jobs numbers showed gains. the fed's outlook turned a little sunnier. and the front page of the washington post has this headline -- gas prices have not stalled consumer spending. february retail sales up 1.1%, suggesting rising confidence in income. one last phone call about the primaries last night. you are supporting rick santorum in jones' bill, virginia, floyd. caller: rick santorum is a godly man. we elected a godly man in virginia, bob mcdonnell. the unemployment rate is 5.4%.

if we push a godly man in there, god will take care of everything else. oes, i seeromney ghost i see obama, because he has done exactly the same thing as obama. host: coming next, we will turn our attention to competitive senate races. we will be right bap. -- back. >> i hope that as we move

forward in this world there are darfur, problems inshao resolv n china, iran. we have a lot of problems and diplomatic solutions will have to be the answer in the future as we start to deal with the problems coming. >> congressman donald payne, who passed away this week, was the first african-american to serve in the u.s. house from new jersey. elected in 1988, he was a former head of the black congressional caucus and served on house committees on education and foreign affairs. to his speeches from the house floor and other c-span appearances archived and searchable online at the c-span video library. congratulations to all this year's winners of c-span's studentcam video documentary competition. a record number of middle and

high school students entered on the team "the constitution and you.:" want all the winning videos at our website and join us mornings in april as we show the top 27 videos on c-span. we will talk with the winners during washington journal. >> our ancestors came across the ocean in sailing ships that you would not go across a lake in. when they arrived, there was nothing here. they built a tiny cabins and they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants. >> as committed to campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. if go to our web site to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> this is also the time to turn away from the excessive preoccupation overseas, to the rebuilding of our own nation.

america must be restored to her proper role in the world. but we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. washington journal continues. host: jennifer duffy, welcome back. senior editor with the cook political report. part of your job is to travel around the country. you sit down with candidates that are running for the senate seats. what are they telling you about those at the top of the tickets? democrats and republicans? both sides they sayn the top issues are the dysfunction in washington, the importance of electing outsiders.

they always tried to distance themselves from other politicians. that would include whoever's at the top of the ticket. host: last night's primaries, what does it mean for national republicans? host: it means a long, slow, painful slog to this nomination, i think. as we've seen in the polls, is hurting mitt romney. it is hard to get serious momentum here. i have serious doubts about that. i think this will start to wear santorum's numbers as well. they will have to mend fences within their own party. we are talking about a lot of competitive states. we go from county delegates to vote -- counting delegates to count electoral college votes.

when we do that is when it starts to focus on the ballots. host: if all of your candidates stay in until the end? caller: i think that you will see some of the smart money on the republican side start to focus a little bit more on the senate races, because the senate majority is at stake. and they will let the presidential work itself out. host: so they will focus more their money on these candidates? caller: right. if this race goes on until september, they can direct more resources to senate and house races. they will operate on their own until they have a ticket. calhost: if it's romney against

santorum, does that changed the dynamic? caller: i don't know. rick santorum has had problems throughout the process. if there is financial resources and it that's one problem and then there's organization. i don't know how he can fix that in time to win. gingrich seems to have his own plan right now. if i don't know how viable is. his own plan of holding on long enough to force a contested convention, where he believes he might able to form alliances with santorum and ron paul to deny romney the nomination. host: which states are keyed to romney pose electoral chances and are also competitive senate races? caller: four races or four states where the presidential race is going to have a big impact on the senate race. it would be the open seats in virginia and wisconsin.

the seed in ohio and the seat in nevada. -- seat. those are four swing states. as the presidential race goes, so must the senate race. host: there are 23 democratic states up for grabs. and republican sets. -- 23 democratic seats and 10 republican seats. clermont task of running for another term and the other is retiring. -- senator claire mccaskill running for another term. caller: what we have seen all cycle is the scales being tilted

against democrats because they have more seats. 10 seats total and seven, most of them at risk. we have given nebraska to republicans, filling ben nelson 's open seat. if these are all battleground states. republicans will have to buck the trend in some of these states. a former governor from hawaii is probably the only competitive republican statewide there now, she will have to count on a lot of split tickets if she hopes to win. many obamaliberal voters, scott brown, there has to be many such voters there to win. you definitely are going to see

where some of these candidates have to row against the tide if they're going to win. the democrats in north dakota will have to outperform obamacare by 10 points if she wants any chance of winning. host: will president obama be campaigning for the tough senate races? caller: he has not been. my understanding is there are no plans to do so before the fall. he might do some of these candidates a favor by not going to their states, but not going to montana or north dakota. host: do they tell you that when you talk to the candidates? caller: yes. we have already seen where the president goes to some states to campaign for himself that a politician had previous commitments elsewhere and is not ump org him on the sto

certainly not as much as republicans campaigned alongside george bush in 2006. tim kaine, obama appointed him as the unseen chairman. he is not running from his relationship with the president. host: those states matter for him as well. caller: by the same token, i'm not sure that scott brown is going to want to campaign with mitt romney over in massachusetts. i'm not sure mitt romney will spend a lot of time in massachusetts. host: we will keep talking about the senate races. we have questions about the tossup races that we threw out there. we will start with an independent in richmond, virginia, jean. caller: i am calling about the virginia race. i think that you are missing the boat. first, it is not just tim kaine

versus george allen. george allen has to win the primary. recently ratke had over 21,000 people sign her petition and she is going to be on the primary. i think-- the wisdom of the mass media and all the political pundits is the backlash against that is being played out in the republican candidacy for president. we are tired of having the same old thing. we are looking for something new such as radke. guest: radke has been in the race for about a year.

outside the party voters, she is not gaining any momentum. she would do better in the primary against george allen if she could face him one-on-one. but it is likely there will be at least one more candidate -- delegate bob marshall, who will probably split the anti- establishment, anti-george allen vote with her. radke has her supporters, but she certainly lacks an attraction statewide. if she were the nominee, i would have to move that race in the democrats' favor. host: jon in boston on the line. caller: my understanding in massachusetts is that scott brown has a pretty sizable lead in a local polls over -- guest: elizabeth warren.

caller: a lot of people seem to be wanting to give him another chance to have a full term in office and he seems to have really connected with the constituency in massachusetts. can you comment? \ also, on the presidential side, i am not sure if there is going nose factor one's with the republicans that no matter who is nominated, even if it is not the candidate of choice, they will vote for anyone just to beat obama. thank you. guest: there have been three polls in massachusetts over the last month that give brown a lead anywhere between eight points and 10 points. i expect that to be somewhat temporary, actually. i think that right now the message environment has been a little bit more conducive to his campaign. elizabeth warren would much rather talk about the economy

but tends to talk about contraception. you get knocked off your game easily. the other thing that brown is doing right is talking to reagan democrats and especially blue- collar democrats. he is making some inroads among those groups. i still expect this to be one of the closest races in the country. as far as the hold your nose factor, i think there may be some of that. conservatives always threatened to stay home. there's no evidence that they do actually. it works against their interests, because the presidential race is not the only race on the ballot. there are senate races and house races and governor's races in 11 states. there may be some hold your nose factor. but the theory that people just stay home never seems to play itself. itself host: on the birth control issue the wall street journal has some new polls.

they show overall opposition to the president's ruling on contraceptive issues. just wondering if that is playing out in massachusetts. guest: there are a fair number of catholic institutions and

massachusetts, from the church, to hospitals, schools and universities. i think this is about two things. one, the government is interfering with religious freedom. the second was this notion of government over reach, and overreaching their walls. for those who oppose the rule, it is less about birth control. then it is about this issue of religious freedom and government overreach. host: we will go to illinois next. did i pronounce your name right? go ahead. caller: i have been looking at four senate races up for grabs. taxes, connecticut, wisconsin, and all ye. who would you say are the strongest gop candidates that

can win the most senate seats? second of all, how confident are you that those candidates can win those seats? guest: you have asked a complicated question because you have primaries and some of those states. the texas primary keeps getting pushed down the road because of redistricting. you have a number of well funded and pretty well-known candidates there. the lieutenant governor, the former mayor of dallas, the former u.s. solicitor who is angling for the tea party. i think you will probably see a runoff in that state because if you do not get 50%, you get forced into a runoff. the goal is to make the runoff and hope for a low turnout. id does not matter who wins the nomination. they have won teh seat.

hawaii -- there is in nominal primary. the candidate will win if very comfortably. if she loses this race, it will be because she simply got overpowered by the top of the victory inbama's hawaii. another state with a complicated republican primary where you have conservatives and some people towards the more established part of the party, the former governor, the former u.s. congressman, and a late entry into this race but a well unded one who is a venture capitalist. that rates will be impacted one way or another by the recall

election of gov. scott walker. host: on twitter -- guest: bob casey will likely face a strong conservative. that is a crowded primary of candidates who are not well known across the state. casey seems to have hit the sweet spot with pennsylvania voters. he voted against the contraception measure. he seems to find that space between angering both parties and appeasing them both. i am not sure i would call him week, but he needs a stronger opponent. host: gail in michigan.

:. caller: i think you guys are missing something. a lot of people out in michigan are angry. this time i am voting democratic. i am sick of the congress and the tea party who are trying to control everything. then there is my daughter who says i am not voting for any incumbent just because they are an incumbent. i am sick of all the nonsense in washington. guest: i need a voters all the time like you and your daughter who are quite tired of washington. congress has a 10% job approval rating. that is an historic low. i understand if you watched the house of representatives, you have a tendency to blame it on the tea party and the republicans. democrats in the senate have to bear some responsibility, too.

i also understand your daughter's point of view, to throw them all out. this is something we have been looking at four months, whether we can have a true incumbent election in this country. what they are about is against incumbents from one party to another. we have not seen an election in this country where they have taken out their anger on both parties equally. host: a poll showed that when they survey people of incumbents and new faces, 47% said give a new person a chance. 40% say they deserve to be reelected. guest: what we have always known is people tend to like their own incumbent. that has now changed. there is one more question about that poll that is my favorite.

if you had the option of going into the polls and voting against every incumbent, including your own, would you? 56% said yes. host: also in this poll, who do you want to control congress? it is split. 12% r unsure. guest: that is not good news for democrats. 1 they are 2, 3, or four. i had, we usually call that even -- when they are two, three, or four points ahead, we usually call that even. host: a republican from west virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. my head is still spinning. the way the democrats talk about

contraception. the catholics did not believe in giving these morning-after pills. that democrats have made this a war on women with the help of the media. i would say with the help of c- span. i would like to know the effect that rush limbaugh has on the political scene. guest: well, i think that -- you blamed a few people for turning this into a war on women. i am going to blame republicans for not turning this into an effective message. when you turn something into a war on women, there is a specific purpose to the.

women voters -- a lot of them tend to be independent. that helps republicans in house races across the country. as for rush limbaugh and his comments, that hurt republicans a lot. i cannot even make an argument that it helped republicans. it hurt them a great deal. not only did he engendered enormous sympathy for the woman who testified, but it also raised the issue of civil discourse in this country and why people are fed up with politics. host: jeff is a democratic collar. caller: good morning. i am a lifelong democrat. is there anything that democrats will not give up?

it drives me nuts. it seems like only the women have the guts and the backbone to stand up to these republicans. you never see the men out there doing that. the rush limbaugh deal -- you see all of these democratic women giving their point of view. where are the men at? when are these democratic men going to get a backbone? i will hang up and see what you have to say. guest: i heard quite a number of male democratic elected officials come out and condemn rush limbaugh's comments. on this issue, it is much more effective to have women out there. a number of women senate candidates and incumbents went on a fund-raising swing this past weekend on this issue. they are maximizing their

ability to do that as women. host: mary on twitter has this tweet -- that is actually a story in the papers this morning, the front page of "the new york times." guest: they are out-raising democrats for now because they have been at it long there. it was not until last month or late january when the president gave the green light for democrats to raise super pac money. this is a process that is new and underway. there are enough billionaires in the democratic party that are

going to fund these pac's. host: does sherry brown have a money problem? guest: she has a very well funded republican opponent. there is going to be a kind of outside money in that race. i think you will see someone like american crossroads in their for the opponent. money is not going to be an issue in this race. host: labor also making headlines this morning. the afl-cio -- let me find a. here we go. that is not it. i will find it and show you the headline. the unions are going to be helping president obama. are they going to be helping the ticket? guest: absolutely. host: here is.

guest: ohio, wisconsin, michigan, massachusetts. i expect them to have enormous presence. host: ken, you are an independent. caller: yes. concerning the senate race in virginia, i remember that the senator made a racial comment a few years ago. i am kind of nervous. i have another comment for the show. instead of having all of these people from the foundation's on, what about having a common man from new york or south carolina custom? host: the whole entire three

hours is a call-in-show for people across america to call in and get prospective. that is what we are trying to do. to let those in washington talk to everyone outside the beltway. caller: can i say one more thing? on the tax payroll holiday -- i do not know how the average person -- my wife and i make an extra $40 a month. what is going to happen to the common people when they really need it? coast coke we are going to be talking about the latest from -- host: we are going to be talking about the latest on that issue. guest: exactly. his comment on virginia -- yes. part of the reason why senator alan lost his race in 2006 what

was taken as a racial slur. he has apologized for it. he talks about learning from it. this is an issue that i think will come up again and again throughout the campaign. they want to give it the same sort of power it had in 2006. host: this is the headline from "the washington journal." all of these states are on your list. the unemployment rate has declined. what is the benefit for the senate candidates? guest: all of those states have republican governors. i heard the republican governors association yesterday start to make the argument that republicans are making good on

their promises to create jobs and to fix unemployment. it actually produces a more hospitable political landscape for republican candidates in all of those states. the exception with colorado but there is no senate race there. in virginia, i sometimes think how can this race become more intense? the answer would be if governor bob mcdonnell who is heading toward the end of the only term he can serve -- he has a great story to tell in terms of virginia's economy. he is from the south and a conservative. he would help mitt romney a loud. who knows who the vice president running mate is going to be? host: a republican from hawaii, good morning. caller: good morning.

if she loses, it is because the union-backed democrats here have an lot of cash. her record has been one of the best governors here. postcode difficult to hear you. guest: he raises a very good point. when we think of democratic politics, we think of big cities. hawaii runs a pretty big democratic machine. however, over the last few years, and we only have anecdotal evidence of this, we have seen the effectiveness of that machine start to wear a little bit especially as the voters age and the younger

voters are a little less loyal to the party. this is why believe that candidate has a shot. she just finished a 21-day fund- raising swing on the mainland as she puts it. i do not think the resources will be a problem. she is so well aware of this. dirty tricks. host: 8 democratic caller from south carolina. caller: how are you? i just wanted to comment on the poll that you talked about with the catholic women up in massachusetts. i don't know how -- host: let me just stop you there. it was not just in massachusetts. it was nationwide. when you ask women with their religious institutions should provide coverage, where men were

split 40/40. caller: even if it is nationwide, they may not say -- when they walk into that voting booth and they are by themselves, their husbands might have been standing next to them on the phone. especially the catholic women, they are breaking religious doctrine if they are using contraception. when they walk in that booth, i think it is going to be different. i would also like to mention that -- i believe that the occupy movement is going to join much closer with labor. they are really going to come out and influence the election. host: let me ask jennifer duffy to take that point. guest: i do think that occupy will be back.

i think they will make an appearance at the conventions. do they join organized labor? that is a good question. they are not really joiners. this sort of have their issues and their movement. i absolutely think they will be back. host: frank is on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: with regards to what was just said, the unions are completely diminished. not diminished, but they will be diminished to a significant degree. their numbers have been going down for the past several years. i am a 25-year-old tea party member. i support small government, limited government, and i am tired of democrats making the

insinuation that we are all going to vote for one party or the other. women to make up a big bulk of the voting constituency. half of them vote for republicans. i think this whole contraception issue is a pretty ridiculous issue. it was actually based on whether they have the right to impose their views on religious institutions. it has nothing to do with contraception. if it was about abortion, it would be a different story. there are several issues in which democrats try to paint republicans as racists or whatever. there are all different types of colors, and i am one of them that represent them. this election will be a rude awakening especially with respect to women, hispanics,

etc. it is a pretty sure thing they are not going to win. guest: it is interesting. when we look at the groups that voted for the president in 2008, african americans -- i think it was like 96%, 97%. we do not expect that to change much. the president's approval rating among hispanic voters has gone down quite a bit since 2009. he may not get those voters. a lot of them were first-time voters. will they come back? as the caller said, there is an exception to everything. 96% of african americans vote democratic, there is the 4% that do not. there is an exception to every rule. what democrats are really

working on right now are independent voters and especially independent women to get them to swing. host: on the latino vote, here is a page from "the washington post." what is going on here? guest: i think arizona is one of these states where you have a controversial immigration bill. is it is a very divisive issue in the state. -- it is a very divisive issue in the state. you even saw john mccain in 2008 walk back his immigration position to fall more in line with republicans. what democrats have done is recruited and hispanic candidate to run for the senate. in the hopes that perhaps his

candidacy boosts the president and his chances. host: what about the state of maine? here is the headline this morning. guest: maine is a work in progress. is going to be probably the most fascinating race -- it is going to be probably the most fascinating race and this cycle. olympia snowe has said she will not run for re-election. that allows only two weeks for individuals to collect signatures for the ballot. they are due tomorrow night. i do believe that you will have democrats file petitions.

one person collecting petitions right now is the former governor. on the republican side, you have a number of people collecting petitions. here is the rub. you have a very powerful independent candidate there, a former two-term governor who was popular. i think he is positioning himself to be the most powerful man in washington, d.c., because he refuses to tell voters and he will not until after the election which party he will colchis with. in a closely divided senate, he is putting himself in a position of power. host: a democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question and a comment. i have to say something to the last caller. the majority of cubans are the

ones that fall republican. that is down in the panhandle of florida and the southern part of lord loud. -- part of florida. in the north, the porter ricans actually vote more democrat. uerto ricans actually vote more democrat. i think they are going to come out in a large number. mark rubio does not support issues pertaining to latinos. guest: yes. one, you are correct when you say that in florida, cubans tend to be in south florida and around miami and tend to vote

republican. puerto ricans do tend to vote more democratic. do not confuse cubans with being hispanic. that is true. i really have my doubts about mark rubio on the ticket. he has only been in office for a short time. i think he has his eyes set on the big prize down the road. host: you are last four jennifer duffy. go ahead. caller: i am going to be voting for the democratic ticket. i have just had its up to here with the republicans and what they are trying to do with women. in arizona, they are trying to allowe doctors to lie to women

about pregnancy problems because they do not want them to have an abortion. they just cut funding for thousands of poor women. there is another bill to try to allow employers to fire women if they are using the pill. one representative referred to women as livestock. it just goes on and on. with rush limbaugh, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. he went past calling women and name names. -- calling women names. it is shaming women for being sexual beings. i do not want republican men telling me what to do with my body. host: jennifer duffy. guest: i think that a lot of

women feel that way. the one thing that worked against republicans was this issue came up at a time that there were a number of legislatures dealing with issues that, we'll call them invasive. virginia defeated their personhood amendment bill. there are other states that are passing laws that are designed to curtail abortion but really do punish women for being women. so, this caller is exactly the voter that democrats are going after right now. host: jennifer duffy, said editor for "cook political report." -- senate editor for "cook political report."

thank you very much. and up next, new cbo members. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> a year and a day after japan's 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a subsequent tsunami, another strong earthquake has shaken the country, prompting several towns to issue advisory's. the 6.8 magnitude earthquake generated a small tsunami but there are no injuries or damage reported. in the last few minutes, a second earthquake has been reported with a magnitude of 6.1. we will keep you posted. defense secretary leon panetta is in afghanistan. a visit that was planned before a u.s. soldier killed several afghan civilians. parliament grilled the

president today, accusing him of mismanaging the economy. president ahmadinejad is the first president in the country's history to be called before the iranian parliament. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span's 2012 local content vehicle takes our programming on the road. the first weekend of each month. louisiana.louisiain >> he started accumulating books when he was a teenager and continued until he was in his 80's. over his lifetime, the accumulated over 200,000 volumes. if we have a gem in the collection, it is probably going to be this one.

it is in its original binding and it was once owned by a very famous scientist. he has written his name. "i. newton." we are not loading it out so much anymore. >> american history tv look at civil war medical practices at a museum. >> pioneer medicine is a long stretch from what it is today. consider the things we take for granted when we go to the dr.. things like the instruments being as germ-free as hospital or the doctor washing his hands. we use the term loosely for doctors when we are talking about early madison. a lot of doctors and our region were self-taught. they were getting ready to retire. they would just learn as they went. >> our tour continues the

weekend of march 31 and april 1 from little rock, arkansas. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joshua gordon is the director of the concord coalition and editor of its blog. you have been with them since 2001. our topic this morning is this new number on the deficit. the congressional budget office came out with this number. $1.20 trillion. why have they raised it? guest: mainly because of the payroll tax cut that was reenacted in december. extended, yes. host: how much did that add to the deficit? guest: around the billto $100 billion dollars -- around $90 billion to $100 billion.

host: jobless benefit? guest: day extended them and paid for them over the 10-year time. as well -- they extended them and paid for them over the 10- year time period as well. they updated their adjustments to take into account changes in legislation as the house budget committee gets ready to prepare their budget. normally they do it in conjunction with the president's budget. this year, it is separated by a few days. the president's budget should be out in a few days. than the budget committee and the congress will use it as well for the same reason. host: house republicans are still putting together their budget. their cars -- there is some internal debate about what the baseline should be. how do you think this report

will impact that? guest: it is the starting line beign fired. now they can go ahead. most of the work is done behind the scenes. they will have the analysis of the president's budget to show their preferred policies and how that separates them from what the president proposed. host: the impact on defense cuts across the board. what do you think the impact is? guest: again, i think a weighs out the baseline. if members are serious about not having the trigger going into effect, not having the defense cuts go into effect, this is the reality they are going to have to be faced with. if you do not want to cut defense spending, it is going to be up to you to show what you can cut in its place.

host: the cost of health care? guest: the report was interesting because there was a lot of movement within the health care legislation. the total score changed very little, about $40 billion over 10 years. within that, there were some interesting things about how much more medicaid is going to cost primarily because of the duration of the recession is going to push a lot more people onto medicaid. host: let's talk more about that. democrats can dial -- republican can dial -- and independents -- what was interesting about medicare? guest: the medicare cuts stay about the same during the 10 years. you have had a slowdown in

health care spending over the last two or three years, something that people would not have predicted five or six years ago. there is a debate how much the recession is making people forgo spending. host: this is the reaction from the house ways and means committee chairman out of michigan. he says -- guest: well, really what the

arguments there are about math and timing. if you have legislation coming on-line in 2014, the 10-year score is going to be lower once you start adding more years onto the back end. overall, the cbo has said there will be very little difference between the deficit costs versus when it was enacted. according to the cbo, it lowers the deficit over 10 years. and even more deficit reduction in the future. host: let's go to the republican from oklahoma. caller: how come they have not made mints in every state to cover up this deficit? host: michael, i think we both

missed that. caller: why haven't the president and the congress people and everybody representing america -- why haven't they made mints in every state to cover up this deficit? host: do you mean create money in every state? caller: yeah, mints. guest: i am not sure how to answer that question. we should think of things like the monetary policy in a separate way than budgetary resources. our monetary policy is really dependent on the federal reserve and global financial flows. this deficit is something that we controlled domestically. host: david has this tweet for you --

guest: yes. that is a coincidence. i think one of the interesting things when you look at plans going forward is that there is all this talk about -- especially on the campaign trail -- large tax cuts and paying for them. we really need to think of the magnitude. a lot of the candidates have a very large proposals for tax cuts and spending cuts. when you look at the super committee failing to save $1.20 trillion, the idea that they are going to be able to cut $4 trillion or $5 trillion in two years -- we should have a reality check. host: john from north carolina tweets in this comment -- howie, an independent from

oklahoma, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? my question is you have got a lot of candidates for office talking about the need to institute in title mayor reform. some of the biggest entitlements out there are social security and medicare. we do not hear anything from any of the candidates talking about reining in the redistribution of wealth going from the young to the old in this country. how much of that $1.20 trillion deficit is the result of faililng to means test social security or make senior citizens pay, you know, market value for

medicare benefits day are receiving? guest: i think the real trick isn't even to look at the short term. it is clear that those three programs are projected to grow much more quickly than the economy over the next 10 years and even more over the next two or three decades. the idea that the distribution from young to old is for us to decide on those programs structured for for the future ad how can we restructure them to take into account life expectancy and health care inflation. if we are satisfied that we have reform them, then the key is to raise taxes high enough to pay for them so we are not adding to the national debt. we need to decide what we want for our retirement programs and

then we need to pay for them. host: would you call it a short- term report? guest: it tends to look beyond 20 years. i think the real interesting thing about the cbo report for the last two years is they do an alternative scenario. they show you where the baseline would take you if no more legislation was passed. over 10 years, the deficit looks pretty good. down to 1% of gdp. the problem is, there are a lot of assumptions that go into that like the tax cuts will expire, the medicare doc fix will not happen, and a bunch of other things that cbo is forced to put onto paper. they have this alternative scenario where you look at the current policy trajectory. debt held by the public goes to about 250% of gdp in 30 years.

that is when you get into some economic problems. host: donna, a republican from north carolina. caller: good morning. i listened to you every morning. the man from north carolina -- i want to ask another question. i was listening to the british commons. they are having something about health care on your other c- span, i think c-span3. i already got my medicare cut. they cut it last year. i had to pay $24 more extra for my prescriptions. i only live on a $600 a month in come. i want to ask the gentlemen if there is any more help for seniors like they got there.

ya'll have a blessed day. thank you. guest: i think the key for medicare is how you not drastically cut benefits for imported medicare while making the system more efficient. it is clear to almost everyone that our entire health care system is incredibly inefficient. as we figure out ways to get more value for our health care dollars, that should help seniors, businesses, and the entire economy because right now there is a huge amount of waste in health care. if you are able to get rid of that waste and put that money toward more productive resources, we should have better health and better budgetary resources. host: mike has this tweet --

guest: i think over the short term, that is correct. over the short term, meaning the next year or two, we should be focused on the economic recovery and insuring it is sustainable. over the long term, the economy will be limited in its growth potential. as you keep growing your debt, hamperestarts to really living standards. over the short term, you are correct. short-term austerity does not make sense until we are out of the woods with the economy. over the long term, we will only have economic growth if we are fiscally responsible. host: explain the difference between debt and deficit. guest: deficit is the and what difference between what we spend and what we take in with

taxes. if you add all of the past deficits, that is our debt. host: tom is an independent caller. caller: good morning. i would like to revert back to medicare for a second. i paid for medicare since its inception in 1964. i paid for my social security and my employer paid for social security since 1965. those are contributions i have made. for the last two years, my social security has been frozen. because of that, i dropped out of medicare. i never used medicare and yet i am paying into it. i paid into it for years. if there is someone to figure out a way to cover the entire budget 10%, i think it would be a great help.

if they are going to cut medicare or social security, cut everything. i want to thank the gentleman for his comments. if they could get that information to washington and get them to listen. i want to thank the young lady for her patients. host: joshua gordon. guest: almost everyone knows about what i am saying. they know where the problems lie in the future. it is a question of getting the political will and the coalitions together to get these changes through taxes or spending programs. on medicare specifically, i think all areas of the budget need to be looked at for scrutiny going forward when you look at the projections for debt including the tax code. again, we really need to reform

medicare and really get a handle on health care costs overall so that seniors and everyone else can a for their healthcare. host: lee on twitter says -- guest: well, medicare is a good example of how that is not the case. the payroll tax only pays for part a. even then, the amount of taxes coming in are not going to be enough to support benefits going forward. you also have medicare parts b and d which are financed through premiums and a huge amount of general revenue. the idea that we have completely paid for all of these programs is not true. that does not mean there is something wrong with how the system is financed as long as you are raising enough money to somehow pay for the benefit

going forward. host: we are talking about the headlines from the latest report on the deficit from the cbo. here is a headline -- we will go to the republican it in din d.c. caller: i am so glad that i have been able to get in. it really bothers me when i hear -- i am an immigrant by the way. i do not know if the government is aware of this. the people who come to this country who never really have contributed to social security or even medicare -- they come to this country and they retire and they do not have to work anymore and yet they are entitled to these benefit.

how is that impacting the perks? guest: i do not know the specific numbers. if you look at the past, immigration has tended to increase the amount of younger employed workers in the country as opposed to older workers coming here to retire. going forward, one of the real challenges we have is our population is aging which means there will be more people leaving the work force and drawing on these programs. a sensible immigration policy going forward is one of the ways that you can keep young people coming into the workforce by allowing immigration for skilled workers and any workers that are not yet retired. that is one of the ways to get debt ratio more favorable for the long term. host: jim says --

guest: that might be true. in this case when we are having the largest economic downturn since the great depression, in that scenario when the federal reserve is pretty much out of tools, the only answer to help get the economy back on track is to allow deficits over the short-term and then to hopefully pair that with reform of some of these programs so our trajectory is more responsible which frees up more flexibility for us in the short term to have a fiscal stimulus. host: another tweet for you from maverick. guest: there are ways to have a single payroll system that are more expensive than our current system.

i think the real key is when you look at the number, if we wait 20 or 30 years to do dramatic changes, we are going to be in trouble. the question is, can you enact a single payer system over a very short amount of time that can start bringing down health care spending? politically, it seems like that will be very difficult. a better option is to work within the programs we have now to build on the affordable care act and try to reform these programs as quickly as we can and as many times as we can. health care reform is not going to just take one piece of legislation. the real key over the long term is to keep coming back to health care reform so we can ensure inflation is controlled. host: mark is a democratic collar. good morning to you. caller: good morning.

i am calling in regards to why the republican politicians in washington refer to social security as an entitlement program. they also claimed that 65% of the national deficit now is for social security. host: let's ask joshua gordon. guest: i am not sure about the last figure. when people look at the deficit and say a portion of that deficit is because of this program or because of spending or tax cuts, when the deficit is simply the difference between what we are spending and what is coming in. any program can be adding to the deficit or not adding to the deficit. it is just a mathematical cash equation. a lot of callers have been complaining about entitlements. what we call things maybe has a

political effect, but in terms of where the programs are going and what they do, it does not matter what we call them. i do think there is a misconception that all of social security and medicare has been paid for through taxes. that is not the case. most workers have gotten a very good deal in terms of what they have spent for medicare and social security and the benefits they have received. host: one last phone call comes from texas. dan is a republican. caller: good morning, everyone. i think we are allowing our political correctness to cut our own fiscal throat. it seems to me, if you look at it, and oftentimes these numbers are hidden from us, medicare is not the problem. medicaid, by far, is the problem. we have millions of anchor babies mooching off the system,

and our political correctness keeps us from addressing the issue. guest: i mean, i think if you just look at the numbers over the next 30 years, and medicare is expected to grow more than medicaid. there will be more medicare beneficiaries. medicaid costs less per person than medicare does often because medicaid pays doctors and a lot lessthan medicare. these programs are affected dramatically -- it is hard to really separate those two programs from each other and the overall health care system. host: thank you for your time. coming up next, we turn our attention to u.s.-british relations as the prime minister arrives at the white house momentarily.

there is the official said up for the official visit frofor the prime minister. we will be showing you it as it rolls out here this morning. we will have live coverage on c- span3. first come at a news update from c-span radio. >> more on the u.s. economy this morning. the u.s. deficit increased at the highest level in three years. the increase partly influenced by an increase in imported airplanes. exports decreased slightly. the current account deficit rose 0.6%, the largest in balance since 2008. economists think the deficit will keep rising in 2012. republican candidate rick santorum is in puerto rico this

morning focusing on the gop primary this coming sunday. the former senator is coming off of primary wins last night in mississippi and alabama. not too far away is the island of cuba where guantanamo bay is holding some taliban prisoners. a blog writes that a deal is a swap for a westerner. moving the prisoners as part of a trade for the return of a western prisoner according to the senate intelligence committee chair. she also confirmed of the name of the westerner in question. the publication online has agreed to withhold that name out of concern of his safety. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> congratulations to all of this year's winners to the c-

span student cam video documentary competition. showing which part of the constitution is important to them and y. you can watch all the videos on our web site. we will talk with the winners during "washington continues. journal" > stephen flanagan is here. we're talking about u.s.-british relations. and david cameron is arriving in a few minutes. what is on the agenda between the leaders? >> -- guest: this is a big relationship. afghanistan will dominate the agenda because the two countries have been in this effort to get there from the get go.

clearly, the two men want to coordinate on the strategy. what to do about the global financial crisis at -- a number of issues will be on their plate. other efforts to talk about policy coordination leading up to things like the nato summit, which will be in chicago in may. host: here is the "financial times" from yesterday. guest: the public -- both the president and the prime minister of our experiencing growing frustration because of the war

effort. last week, articles were published right to say why the fight was worth it. prime minister cameron has been steadfast about this and what he wants to do is to come here and get agreements with president obama that they can see through this strategy. they agree to it, in the end of 2010, which was a gradual transition over the period in up to 2014 to the afghans taking full control of security situations. in the meantime, to work to train the afghan security forces in maintain stabilization in the areas where u.s. and british and other troops are still deployed. host: lots of debates here especially following the civilian killings on sunday that perhaps the administration is coming up with plans to withdraw from afghanistan faster than originally thought. is that something that the british prime minister will be on board with question marks guest: both governments know that -- and the withdrawal took

place, there was a transition. there has to be a transition and this was the plan from the get go. and there was always going to be that during 2013 -- there was confusion because announcements were made by president sarkozy about how french troops were coming out in 2013. the combat troops. some other uncertainties about the timetable. but, both the president and prime minister made clear that both governments will transition their troops in 2013 from a combat role to an advisory role. after that, this is the key question to decide, what about after 2014? will there be a presence? particularly if you see the frustration with the notion that we do not like before and people telling us what to do, try to run the country for us. host: do they differ on what happens then? guest: i do not believe so. they agree there should be an

advisory presence. something akin to a training mission with additional support because they know this will be a long-term transition in afghanistan. everybody knew that from the first place. clearly, the afghans coming from the basis they were caught it would take longer than 5 to 10 years to manage their own security and deal with the insurgency they confront. host: we are going to look it nato numbers. you here come a lot coming from the united kingdom and u.s. when it comes to nato's strategic forces. what will be the role of nato? guest: over the long term? host: yes. guest: they're going to shift to an advisory mission. right now, nato has command-and- control with a number of other countries that are not nato members over all the forces in afghanistan. a u.s. commander, of course. right now.

there is an american commander in a nato commander. he is in charge of the overall presence divided to different areas. he is looking at the place mats that lists all of the countries. you can see the flags bear. --there. that is up to 42 countries contributing to this. their role is to help the afghans. there is counter-terrorism operations, as they call them. those going after capturing or other wising -- otherwise neutralizing the terrace. there is a lot of -- there are a lot of efforts working with the afghan government and local government to try to help bring back the economy, to give afghans another alternative to the kind of war-torn and drug- driven economy they have had over the last three decades. host: 80's role in libya? in libya?role

guest: they helped with the tyrannical regime. so, made a step in and prevented that. it eliminated and neutralized the capacity of the gaddafi you forces. -- gadhafi forces. now, they're working with a number of natal -- libyans to see -- to transition to a new government and tried to do with the militias that are still out there. host: what about syria? what is that you gave you? guest: the one to support humanitarian relief. they continue to support the arab league's u.n. mediation to try to convince bashar al-assad

that he should go. neither government is in favor of intervention. it is a different kind of situation in libya. there is not the broad regional support for this. it is a much more complicated and religious picture. the military options are much more difficult in terms of what could be accomplished without doing more damage. host: we are talking about getting countries like russia and turkey to play a bigger role. how could the u.k. help? guest: the u.k. does that have a historic role in syria the way that france does -- there was a french mandate under the league of nations. britain has some influence in the area. they are diplomats. they also have some capacity to work with other nato allies like

turkey. turkey does want to play a role in humanitarian support in a peaceful resolution because they have worked hard to resolve their differences with syria in the past. host: are seeing the white house administration officials, including joe biden and his wife coming out of the white house for the official on arrival of david cameron, the prime minister and his wife. the president should be coming out shortly along with first lady, michelle obama . welcoming them to the white house. there will be lots of, and circumstance. coverage begins on c-span3. we are providing analysis of a u.s.-british relations. there will be a joint conference at noon. -- turned into c-span for that. we will be covering the state dinner tonight at 6:15 p.m.. go to c-span.org if you are interested in following today's

visit. the car has pulled up outside the white house. we will be showing this to our viewers as we continue to talk to stephen flanagan . we want to get our callers involved in the conversation, as well. democrat -- republicans -- independents -- 202-682-0184 if you are outside the united states. especially if we have a british audience this morning. let me ask you, as we wait to see the president, about this headline in "usa today." is there still a special relationship between the u.s. and britain? guest: president obama and the prime minister, in their articles, talked about a special relationship.

in some ways, that is a better characterization. there is a lot of talk about with the president would call on that korean crisis over iran or whatever it is. -- at 4:00 a.m. crisis over iran or whatever it is. there is no conceivable crisis that the president would not call first the british prime minister. that would be the first call because we can rely on each other. that is another point that the two leaders made. we rely on each other. there is a sense we may not exactly see it completely eye to eye in terms of what specific policy response to take, but on nine out of 10 crises, we are going to probably agree and be willing to take some action to get there. i think that is really the mark of a special relationship. some of this discussion in the last few days have been to take the notion a way that obama does not care about britain. he is true that the u.s. is shifting its focus to asia, but that first call is not going to

go to beijing when there is a crisis in the middle east or with russia or somewhere else in africa. that call is going to go to london. host: we will go to the fall months. the numbers are on the screen. -- we will go to the phone calls. the numbers are on the screen. who is david cameron? guest: he is a skilled politician, a conservative politician. he is seen as a young and fresh face for the tories. he has been struggling with domestic scandals at home. particularly his cell phone tapping -- people he is associated with. there was a story right before he left suggesting that he went

out riding horses with mr. brooks. he is part of an elite group in the u.k. he came from humble origins. he grew up and went to some of the finest schools in the u.k. and has been a leading force. also managing a difficult coalition with local democrats. something that is not sometimes forgotten when we see that he is here without his coalition partner. he is in a coalition government. sometimes, they have had tensions over some of the difficult domestic reforms and the toughest austerities that mr. cameron has supported in the financial crisis in the u.k. host: why is he here now? guest: there is so much in common with president obama. this is a reciprocal visit.

president obama was there last year for a state visit with the queen. also the business of managing the bilateral relationship, and multilateral cooperation. he is here because there are a lot of big issues on the agenda. first of all, the current crisis over afghanistan. what to do. they're going to talk about that g-8 summit in may. in the nato summit in chicago, surely it thereafter. there is a lot, and concerns that both leaders have about getting that agenda right. -- both common concerns that both leaders have about getting the agenda right. there is an issue that i am sure the prime minister will want to talk to the president about, which is the falklands were the u.s. has had to sort of delicate we tiptoed around it and supporting countries like argentina. and its relationship with you

came -- with a u.k. host: sports is on the agenda at -- was on the agenda yesterday. they traveled to dayton, ohio to watch the march madness and the ncaa basketball tournament. we are showing the two of them on the sidelines. president obama seem to be explaining to the prime minister some parts of basketball that he did understand. they did an interview at halftime were the prime minister put a shot out for the olympics in london. the president said, we should have some good basketball, referring to team usa . guest: that is a good point that the prime minister wants to profile the olympics, which they are hoping will be a big css. i was surprised he had not -- a big success. as a price he had not seen a basketball game before -- i was surprised he had not seen a

basketball game before. they had to explain the details. host: economically, is that why there is a push for the olympics? guest: 80 is a huge effort for london to -- to take the city of 12 million people and certainly move all of these people around as well as the venues, which will be close to the central london. britain has done a great job of improving its public transit and providing the kind of, you know, measures that will insure there will be a smooth running of the events and say protection of the athletes and the state transit to the venues. i think it will be an interesting time. there is an important -- some important economic discussions. even some differences the two men may have on the global economy we might mention, which is that the prime minister has

instituted some very tough austerity measures, cutting many of the domestic programs in the u.k., also cutting defense about 8%. cutting into everything except for foreign assistance. the british have tried to bring sense their foreign assistance budget. they give a higher percentage of gdp than the u.s. does. the british for a living through a tough austerity measures. the president has been more in favor of stimulus. there is a difference they have been that in some of the g-j discussions that will be coming up. it will be interesting to see whether there will be a headline about this in the next few days. that is one of the questions they may be discussing. we can talk in the questions and answers about the effects of the austerity versus the stimulus and how the two economies of here. host: they will be talking this morning at the official of arrival ceremony. we will try to bring our viewers

a little bit of that as you and i continue to talk with the viewers, as well. c-span3 is covering the arrival. we have an independent in jacksonville, florida. go ahead. caller: i am a democrat. good morning. i wanted to come in with -- commend stephen flanagan for his job. how are britain and the u.s. going to try to push china and russia to get off the fence with syria? guest: that is what i think the two leaders are trying to do to try to convince the russians that their continued support to the syrian regime and the arms sales in china sitting on the

fence a bit about supporting the security council measures and some of the arab league measures to try to force the bashar al- assad to enter into an agreement. that is the kind of coordination diplomacy that the two leaders will try to work history and try to convince, particularly now that the russian election is over, to convince vladimir putin that it is time to andy's arm sells better leading to such a bloody slaughter in the country and to look at how there might be some way to support settlement. there have been some sense that the russians might be moving on this question and might at least be willing to -- as long as -- the russians do not like a measure that would be forcing bashar al-assad to resign in advance for to be moved aside. the notion of some kind of cease-fire and discussion while

kofi annan tries to work a diplomatic dialogue in the ending of the killings. host: james, iowa, barbara. democrat. caller: i agree with the 60% of americans that feel we should get out of afghanistan. i just think what is then going on there illegally is horrible. just horrible. -- lately is horrible. just horrible. the americans killing all of the afghanis. the children, the women. and then the afghanis killing americans. it is just a miss. i do not believe we can win there. that is my comment. guest: thank you. that is the whole struggle we have had all along, what does it mean to win? the goal is -- with the two leaders are trying to argue and with you and others in the public who are questioning why we are still there, this notion

that if we just cut and run, pick up and leave, the notion that all the gains that have been made -- there have been gains made in the number of staff gets a -- in the number of afghans that are getting education. what would you tell those people who have worked with us over the last decade to try to create a new afghanistan if we just left? this sense is with the nato allies and the other contributors of the coalition that supports the effort of stabilization in afghanistan have said, let us have this transition and we will have a. time where we will give the afghans believe -- the lead. at that time, our forces will transition towards advising them. there is written. there is resentment. even from the top.

when there was a condolence letter about the americans killed, even in the context of the letter, he said, we are still tired of the way the u.s. and other street us. the night raids. looking for suspects of terrorism and tallied and operatives. we do not like this anymore. -- taliban operatives. we do not like this anymore. this strategy for a transition -- we have to get through difficult times and tried to dampen the secretary of defense's tensions. he is trying to dampen the tensions between the government and the international partners. trying to say, let us get through this. we know what we hope to achieve. the u.s. and the other coalition forces are planning to leave to try to return sovereignty and leave them in a better situation than when we found it. host: president obama and michelle obama finally came out

from the car. the prime minister's carquinez ducking d.c. traffic. -- car is stuck in d.c. traffic. if you want to listen in, go to c-span3. we go to war in time, virginia. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i appreciate c-span. my question is to the guest -- first of all, this mission for the past 10 years has been for the rest of the afghan people from the atrocities of the taliban and the al qaeda. this has been spreading in the area in the pakistan the borderline -- pakistan in boulder line. this mission should be kept

honestly and also, does the guests think that leaving afghanistan as is right now will cause more problems, bringing taliban back because they have strong missions in there? they have a lot of support from pakistan and they are hiding weapons and there are other factions. that will create more -- i think once they get back in power, they are going to kill the chickens of afghanistan. they will cut their heads off. host: as you are talking, the prime minister arrived and he is being greeted by the rest of the obama administration. the top officials. as stephen flanagan said

earlier, afghanistan will be on the table. part of their discussion and likely to come up at their noon press conference. guest: i think you put it very well as to what the struggle is all about. that is what i was trying to say earlier. the two leaders agree that all of those threats that you cited continue to exist. there is no doubt about it that afghanistan, whatever government follows, will have a difficult challenge in trying to reconcile some of these actions. the taliban -- they will not all go away or be killed. there is a sense that there is a group within the taliban leadership that is tired of war. the people are tired of conflict. the insurgency against the soviets and then now, the struggles over the last 10 years. they are tired. they want to change. the hope is that, and this is where there have been discussions behind the scenes to try to find those tallied and

were willing to make -- taliban who are willing to end the insurgency and to be content with -- if you had some kind of regional devolution of power and authority that would allow areas have more taliban-style governments would be acceptable, you could still have other areas that did not want to return to that way they were living over the last five or six years. they are trying to create a different kind of government. that is the struggle that will be ahead. that is for the afghans to decide. host: we will hear from the prime minister. they have come to the podium. national anthems are being played. amazingly enough, england has worse conservatives than we do. he says, cameron was supposed to modernize the tories. guest: this is a question -- the

austerity measures. many people sort of like it to the factor. in the '80s when there was a very tough -- many people sort of like in it to the margaret thatcher period in the 1980's when there is not compassion in the u.k. there is a sense we have to get through this very tough period. the only way to make bridge and effective is to play in the international community and to sustain a lifestyle that it enjoys -- to take these measures. cameron does have some differences. bill -- even within his own coalition, not everyone has agreed. perhaps this tory government is not as sensitive to the needs of people in the uk who are suffering and having to deal with the austerity measures. host: david, go ahead.

caller: in light of a resolution from the united nations against genocide and americans -- back in 1984, it was signed into law, a treaty. i wonder if the british are part of a it. they are against hurting people on a religious movement. it is ok to eliminate them or kill them. in syria and it in china and libya and iraq, whenever they was actually already in

light of this treaty that americans signed and many other countries. guest: there was a convention on genocide and the u.s. and u.k. are parties to it. it has the affect of international law. if you declare that there is a genocide taking place in a certain area, it imposes certain obligations to take measures to try to prevent it. this has come up time and time again. it was an issue during the balkan. period. the question of what the u.s. and the other international community members consider what was being done in bosnia genocide? there was a lot of hesitation because it obliged the u.s. and other countries to take certain actions to try to deal with that. this was the responsibility to protect. this was involved in it which, although not specifically labeled genocide in libya, but that was certainly a notion.

this was justifying the action that the international community took to prevent the slaughtering. host: this is an official visit, not a state visit and out of by the prime minister -- not a state visit by the governor. -- by the prime minister. this will taste like a state dinner but with a mere 19 gun salute. you the two leaders make their way across the white house lawn. we have coverage on [video clip] -- we have coverage on c-span3 and we will hear from the leaders. let us go to massachusetts. a democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions about the arab spring and what is going on in syria and libya. the first one to mention -- i do not know if anybody is talking

about the republican from north carolina. he is talking about president obama waging war without consent of congress. he could be impeached. he needs congressional approval. that is the way the constitutional is -- the constitution is written. guest: this was raised about the libyan operation. president obama and his lawyers testified it under other circumstances. in terms of the u.n. security council, this was technically not a war, but there was use of force beyond 60 days. aspects of the war powers act require congressional notification and approval. the president, i think right now, the notion -- the idea of going to war over syria is very remote. i think that more likely, we

will see efforts to try to protect civilian populations or to set of humanitarian corridors. i do not see the u.s. and others in the international community be prepared to take military action against syria. that is a more difficult challenge and a more difficult operation to see how you would achieve the political effect that we want the through aerial bombardment and other kinds of intervention. host: on twitter -- guest: there is no doubt that there are frictions in iraq over the way moloch he is undertaking his role -- malaki is taking -- undertaking his rule to hamper the coalition parties to have an effective role in government. the free market that was

established many years ago it is -- to provide for a strong central government. the central government has not been working very effectively. that is why many people are talking about the need to return to a model in afghanistan where there was much more local control and much more local authority because the central government has proven that it has not been as effective as many in the international community. -- as many indians international committee hoped it would be. i do not think there is a dictator. there is a lot of regional power. i do not think that anyone is moving in the same way to eliminate the opposition that the last election -- the last election had many flaws to it. there were concerns expressed. i do not think that there will

be a dictator. host: our guest is the henry kissinger chair and national security of the senate force strategic and international studies. you are on the air with stephen flanagan, go ahead. caller: to live for taking my call. listening to every -- thank you for taking my call. you start to go out of your mind thinking who is right and who is wrong. when did we start a fight, when should the end? it seems kind of crazy. my son is a veteran 7 times total in afghanistan and iraq. he is not the same sun i sent off to rise: -- son i sent off to high school. it is are to have an opinion when you are allowing your children to fight for something crooked. guest: you are right. thank you for your son's service.

many of our soldiers have seen these multiple to worse. the u.s. and u.k. both have seen that kind of operational tempo with the military -- operational tempo with these long-term deployments. i think the forces -- what they are providing the of service, that is not what they signed up to do. you will see this in some of the discussions that president obama has undertaken. the united kingdom went through a similar thing in 2010. to talk about being a little bit more selective in the times of international encasements -- engagements that we put our soldiers in harm's 4, when is a vital interest? when is it something good to

two? when should we let others deal with the problem? that is -- has been the problems that the u.s. has had because oftentimes, the u.s. is a country that everyone turns to because of our enormous capacity and the capacity of our armed forces. there certainly is a growing mood, particularly as we look at the cutbacks, we should be more judicious about which missions we undertake in the future. host: james is watching us. he is a democrat. caller: good morning. i am a first-time caller. i want to know what is the perception of the politics in the u.k. towards the british people and the birth certificate with paul bon mot. the politics of -- and the birth certificate of president obama.

the questioning of his birthright. it what is the british people -- when they look at our politics, >> -- guest: i think the british what do they think? term used by our politics. both countries have interesting politics and various scandals, but i am sure they are scratching their heads at the whole birthright movement. i have not seen much discussion of it lately in the british press. i think that president obama remains popular in the u.k. there is an expectation and a hope that president obama will be reelected. i hope they are feeling that he is a president that he has worked well with. is he more focused in the future of asia? less interested in europe? president obama is trying to reassure them that he is not turning his back to europe. she is looking at asia because that is where a lot of the big

challenges are in the future -- he is looking at asia because that is where a lot of the big challenges are in the future. this will be developing over the coming decades. we still view europe as the president has said, as an important partner in many things we hope to achieve, including in asia. host: let us listen to what the president is saying about u.s.- british relations. >> today, we carry on another tradition. an official visit from one of our closest friends and our dearest allies, prime minister cameron. misses cameron, members of the british delegation, on behalf of the american people, it is my honor to welcome you to the united states. [applause] david, samantha, on behalf of

michaud and myself, welcome to the white house. samantha, let me say that we are delighted that you have made america your first official foreign press. [applause] it has now been 200 years as the british came here to the white house under somewhat different circumstances. [laughter] they make quite an impression. [laughter] they lit up the place. [laughter] we move on. [laughter] today, like so many presidents and prime ministers before us, we need to reaffirm one of the greatest alliances the world has ever known. this visit is also an opportunity to reciprocate the

extraordinary and gracious hospitality shown to us by her majesty, queen elizabeth, by david in samantha, and by the british people during our visit to london last year. we are proud that this visit comes as her majesty begins her diamond jubilee. celebrating 60 extraordinary years on the british throne. [applause] it is remarkable to consider the decades we have seen nation's rise and fall, wars fought and peace defended. a city divided. a wall come down. countries imprisoned behind an iron curtain and then liberated. we have seen the demise of the cold war and the rise of new threats. the transition from an

industrial revolution to an information age where new technologies in power our citizens and our adversaries like never before. our world has been transformed over and over and it will be again. yet, through the grand sweep of history, through all -- host: president obama speaking at the white house during the welcoming ceremony for british prime minister david cameron. again, live coverage on c-span3 if you want to listen to the president. we are back with stephen flanagan. let me ask you, stephen flanagan, what is the president tried to get out of the visit? guest: he is hoping to get a check on where the two leaders are with regard to some of the key issues ahead. his question will also be first, afghanistan. he will want to reassure the

prime minister of how we are dealing with the crisis that was caused by the killing of the soldier who went on a rampage. how we are dealing with that and will continue to manage a transition. he will explain how we see the transition and what secretary panetta meant when he talked about the 2013 clamping down of the troops. they're going to want to coordinate all iran. they think diplomacy has not run its course. they want to make sure that they agree on how to deal with this over the coming months. the president will want to brief him on his discussions with the israeli prime minister last week. and to sort of see where they think things can go over the coming months. he certainly also wants to try to harmonize policies on bucket g-8 summit and also looking at the nato summit. nato has to do with some other issues.

how the two countries as leaders in nato are going to maintain the capabilities of the alliance to defend our collective interest any time of fiscal austerity when both u.s. and u.k., as the two leading contributors, are cutting back defense budgets. host: we have republican up next. caller: my question is -- we have been fighting the taliban for decades. pakistan is supposed to be our ally. guest: there is no doubt about the idea that there are ties between elements of the pakistani government and the taliban. it is part of a larger struggle of -- relating to pakistan's struggle with india.

they do not in -- they do not want india to have too large of a role in afghanistan. this is complicated. much of the taliban support comes from indigenous capacity. there is also a bit of evidence that the drug supplies and the sales of pot the and drugs are part of where they get some of the resources to pay some of the fighters that continue to be effective in -- against the coalition forces. i do not think it is solely that they are dependent on outside support. it -- there is a deep conviction rooted in religious convictions in a sense that somehow, what is being done is against the teachings of some interpretations of islam and babette -- and that the karzai government is full of infidels.

this will be a continuing problem for karzai government even after the international community leaves. host: here is a tweet -- what is obama's stance on the falkland islands? guest: this is a bilateral issue between argentina and the u.k. and should be referred -- refer to further negotiation. there was a controversial resolution in the organization of american states, the group that the u.s. is part of in the western sun is here, which was greeted western hemisphere, which was talking about the mediation which the british opposed. the u.s. has corrected or adjusted its position. and taken the stance that we think this is something that the u.k. and the argentine government can work out together in a normal diplomatic discussion. i do not think there is a risk of conflict again. it is not 1982 again.

the u.k. has taken sign of force. they have set some naval vessels there and also, the duke of cambridge was out there as a search and rescue pilot and helicopter pilots. they have been making symbolic gestures to say, you know, we will not give up on the idea that the falkland islanders should decide their own fate. host: an e-mail from columbus, mississippi. he wants to know the difference between the u.k. and the eu. guest: the u.k. is a member of the european union, but i think it is there that it is not the strongest and most convince member of the european union. the united kingdom is not a member of the eurozone. they have their own currency. prime minister kim and has been seen as a bit of a euro skeptics -- prime minister

cameron has been seen as a bit of a euro-skeptic. he has tried to manage the differences within his own party, particularly some of the tory ranks that are hard over against further interrogation of the european union. in the sort of mentality referred to as little england. he is not of that. he sees the future of britain. they have gained a lot from the process of european integration. he has been working closely with the french government, as well, to try to foster other european cooperation. i think he is more interested in the traditional bilateral cooperation with key european allies and perhaps further integration into the european union and building of the structures. host: let us listen to what david cameron is saying. >> the there can be no more tangible illustration of our two nations, defending our

values and import your interests, then the mutual sacrifices made by our servicemen and women. that is once again to be to their value come up their professionalism, and their dedication, here in washington today. [applause] from the balkans to baghdad, across the world and the decades, we have been proud to serve with you. when the chips are down, britain and america know that we can always count on each other. because we are allies, not just prepared to say the right things, but to do the right things. and to do it in the right way. promoting our values, standing up for our ideals. the partnership between our countries, between our peoples, is the most powerful partnership for progress that the world has ever seen. that is why whenever an american

president and a british prime minister get together, there is a serious and important agenda to work through. today is no different. afghanistan, iran, the arab spring, the need for trade, for growth, for jobs in the world. the biggest issues in the world -- that is our agenda today. what makes our relationship so vigorous in so lasting is that it draws its strength from roads far deeper and broader than government or the military. host: our coverage of the prime minister's speech continues on c-span3. stephen flanagan, what did you hear? guest: he sees this as a special relationship between the two countries. the u.s. and u.k. have been added together for a long time. -- at it together for a long time. they will continue to deepen our relationship. -- mr. cameron -- host: mr. cameron goes to

washington. guest: this is true. president obama will have this question in these austerity measures. one of the things that has happened is that there has been a cut in spending -- defense spending. that is 18% because of other obligations that were not fully funded. one of the questions is, apropos what i was saying earlier about a phone call, can i count on you, one of the questions will become a will britain have the kind of capabilities that we hope they will have to be there for us? when you look at the details, they will be. they will not be quite as robust. they will not have an aircraft carrier over the next decade. they will have to operate in the aircraft as they did in libya

from using ground bases and other -- in other areas. they are reviewing that decision. but, they have agreed to maintain a fairly effective and robust military capability, particularly army, special forces, for the kinds of military contingencies we are likely to see in the future. there will be a capacity that britain will be a contributor on the scale that we have seen in afghanistan and elsewhere. they will be there for the u.s. and the u.s. can count on them as an ally if there is a contingency in the middle east or some other situation somewhere round europe's for free. -- periphery. in the u.k. will remain committed to that kind of engagement, but it will have to be more selective and except a little higher risk sometimes when i to undertake these operations because the military establishment is not as robust.

host: let us go outside of washington. a democrat caller from tennessee. you are on the air. caller: thank you, good morning. i was calling in -- america is stepping around and everybody has problems. in britain, the people feel the same way we do here in america about these wars. everybody knows -- the wars are about drugs. everyone knows this. we need to bring those people home. when you keep saying that taliban over there, explain to the people of the u.s. endeavor was that the taliban is the pinnacle of afghanistan. guest: the penn -- the taliban are citizens of afghanistan. there is an effort to try to bring them into some kind of political dialogue and to talk about how we can have a peaceful resolution,.

that it no doubt contributed to these wars are -- the contributors to these words are tired of the mission. there is another way to find a political resolution. this may not result in exactly the vision many had going into afghanistan 10 years ago. it may not provide exactly the stability we hoped for. a key thing -- the u.s. strategic interests is to insure that afghanistan does not again become a launch pad for terrorist operations against western countries and that the people are at least given a chance to provide for themselves a different future and not the kind of 30 years of conflict and internal killings they have seen over the past three decades. host: on twitter -- u.k. -- will they refuse the

euro? james, a republican. go ahead. caller: if israel the something iran for their nuclear capabilities, how do you think the u.k. or the british will back us? guest: thank you. the prime minister was talking about the notion that he was worried about a 4:00 a.m. phone call when he would find out from the prime minister -- the president that they have launched a military operation and then what? the u.k. is going to be -- both the u.s. and u.k. government and the israeli government want to avoid that option, if they can. the emphasis on continuing to ramp up the economic pressures, the british government is help -- supporting the sanctions to isolate the iranian government.

it is having impact on the iranian economy. that contributes to the popular discontent with the iranian government. if you got into this situation where the israeli government forced the hand of the u.s. or the u.k., you could expect, at a minimum, whether or not you take government would finish the job -- the israelis expect the u.s. and other supporters to finish the job. that is a harder question to predict. there would be a debate because there is the risk of a wire war and iranian terrorist actions. so, there would be a pretty intense debate over what the scope of the u.k. response

should be in that scenario. host: michael, a democratic caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a lot of republican friends and i speak about health care with them. they always tell them -- tell me, if we went to universal health care, we would have people dying in the e r and not able to get the service that they needed. i wanted to know if we had that problem in britain? and also what are some of the major hitters to the economy with the single payer plan like that? do they have some of the same problems amongst the use -- youth with drugs? guest: i have experience with this. i live in london in 1983, 1984.

i found that care quite good. including a visit to my son from the local health care nurse and periodic visits. there is no doubt it that the health care service can be uneven sometimes. elective surgeries -- there is a weight. in the u.k., you have enough 10 to go outside and go to private providers -- you have an option to go outside and go to private providers if it is delayed because of backups in the health services. in general, i have not seen recent surveys, but i know in the past, there is contentment with the national health service in the u.k., but there are concerns about how the austere measures will impact level of service. this notion that has been trumped up by critics of the

system that there are hundreds of people dying because the government decides they will not get the surgery, i think that is far fetched. host: the problem in both the u.k. and u.s. is that 99% are not being listened to. perhaps, we should unite and force the hand of 1% on both shores. independent, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. and do you think relations with britain will be better with israel since britain is forcing christians to remove crosses from necklace is? thank you. guest: i am not familiar with that situation. britain has some of the same kinds of -- the church of england is a more -- there is a different approach to the church and state relations. there is an official -- there is an official role in british

political life. i do not know about that specific instance. host: jacksonville, florida. a republican. good morning? caller: yes, i think the war with russia and afghanistan, and they went bankrupt because of whole -- the president should throw the troops out immediately. he should get the troops the help they need in the u.s. all the money they spend over there is a waste. guest: i take point and there are many -- i take your point and there are many people who feel that way. the cut and run is unattractive. what will you tell all of the women that we worked hard to pre been to -- protect and provide coverage for?

we are sorry, you have to go back to be subject to the kind of rolled up the taliban had imposed over you in the 1990's. that is not very appealing to the u.s. we stand for some values and principles. i do not know that the notion that we simply pull out as abruptly as you are suggesting -- that the trees all of those people in afghanistan we said we were committed to helping -- that the trace all of those people in afghanistan we said we were committed to helping. we will try to sort out the differences. host: there will be a joint news conference around noon here eastern. we have coverage here on c-span. stephen flanagan, what questions do you expect will be asked by the press? guest: i will be listening for what their decisions are and their positions with the current

crisis in afghanistan and how the transition will be managed. reoffering -- reaffirming the timetable and schedule of 2013 shifting over from full combat operations to an advisory role and then beginning in 2014, transition out of afghanistan. iran, i expect to see there will be talks about what steps to take in the next few months to avoid this sense that the israelis feel they may have to take action, particularly if the iranians give -- go above a level of enrichment. host: do you think that the prime minister or the president will lay out redlines? guest: i do not think so. i think they will want to retain and dick -- ambiguity. the president's goal is to try to get past the election and not have this become a political issue over what -- and also to

have a sense that there is a conflict in the midst of all of this other stuff going on in syria and the area. he would have a much wider war in the middle east if this happened because already, we have somewhat of a proxy war going on between iran and the u.s. and some of the other countries. the iranians back the syrian regime very strongly. this is an important conduit to them to put pressure on israel. we have a little bit of a conflict going on in syria. that will be another crashed in the two men will have to address. what are the plans to end the slaughter in syria beyond -- if direct intervention by the arab league is not in the cards, what else can be done to try to minimize this water? to put pressure on the bashar al-assad regime? host: what